Other places have drawn analogogies about Wikipedia as being akin to a cult. I think it does have aspects of that. The same has been said about Trotskyist groups. I think that a better analogy would be that Wikipedia looks like a Trotskyist group (though obviously not in any political sense).
- Wikipedians value themselves on the amount "counts" they are at. - Wikipedians spend more time discussing policy than actually writing articles. - Wikipedians don't respond well to critism from outsiders. - Wikipedians have an Uber Mentor (Jimbo Wales).
- Trotskyists value themselves on the amounts of "newspapers" they have sold. - Trotskyists spend more time discussing policy that actually doing groundwork. - Trotskyists would rather die than have a kind word for somebody who has left the movement. - Trotskyists have an Uber Mentor (Leon Trotsky, James P. Cannon, Gerry Healey, Posada, Tony Cliff, Ted Grant etc. etc).
Perhaps, many groups could be included not just Trotskyists (I have been a Trotskyist for 18 years, and been part of various schisms within even small groups), but use it as an example of how ordinary editors do get bogged down in changing perception of policy and guidelines, which many, many editors only get to hear about when they actually contribute.
Perhaps a closed Wikipedia is the way forward, we all know that Wikipedia is not the encyclopedia everyone can edit.
There was much criticism of Esperanza and it ended up just being a clubroom and block vote. A New Esperanza type project would be helpful (wikilove is too crass though) but as a way of helping new editors or editors who tend to write new articles not get so fed up with process that they leave.
Would welcome any comments.
Mike33
on 6/24/07 8:01 PM, michael west at michawest@gmail.com wrote:
Other places have drawn analogogies about Wikipedia as being akin to a cult. I think it does have aspects of that. The same has been said about Trotskyist groups. I think that a better analogy would be that Wikipedia looks like a Trotskyist group (though obviously not in any political sense).
- Wikipedians value themselves on the amount "counts" they are at.
- Wikipedians spend more time discussing policy than actually writing
articles.
Wikipedians don't respond well to critism from outsiders.
Wikipedians have an Uber Mentor (Jimbo Wales).
Trotskyists value themselves on the amounts of "newspapers" they
have sold.
- Trotskyists spend more time discussing policy that actually doing
groundwork.
- Trotskyists would rather die than have a kind word for somebody who
has left the movement.
- Trotskyists have an Uber Mentor (Leon Trotsky, James P. Cannon,
Gerry Healey, Posada, Tony Cliff, Ted Grant etc. etc).
Perhaps, many groups could be included not just Trotskyists (I have been a Trotskyist for 18 years, and been part of various schisms within even small groups), but use it as an example of how ordinary editors do get bogged down in changing perception of policy and guidelines, which many, many editors only get to hear about when they actually contribute.
Perhaps a closed Wikipedia is the way forward, we all know that Wikipedia is not the encyclopedia everyone can edit.
There was much criticism of Esperanza and it ended up just being a clubroom and block vote. A New Esperanza type project would be helpful (wikilove is too crass though) but as a way of helping new editors or editors who tend to write new articles not get so fed up with process that they leave.
Would welcome any comments.
Mike, why the need for a label? What difference does it make what it's called, so long as it is meeting the needs of the individuals enjoying it and getting satisfaction from it?
Marc Riddell
On Jun 24, 2007, at 5:36 PM, Marc Riddell wrote:
Mike, why the need for a label? What difference does it make what it's called, so long as it is meeting the needs of the individuals enjoying it and getting satisfaction from it?
Labels are powerful devices, and there are those people who love to use them. It makes for an easy/lazy way out, instead of thinking.
-- Jossi
On 6/24/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
Other places have drawn analogogies about Wikipedia as being akin to a cult. I think it does have aspects of that. The same has been said about Trotskyist groups. I think that a better analogy would be that Wikipedia looks like a Trotskyist group (though obviously not in any political sense).
- Wikipedians value themselves on the amount "counts" they are at.
- Wikipedians spend more time discussing policy than actually writing
articles.
Wikipedians don't respond well to critism from outsiders.
Wikipedians have an Uber Mentor (Jimbo Wales).
Trotskyists value themselves on the amounts of "newspapers" they
have sold.
- Trotskyists spend more time discussing policy that actually doing
groundwork.
- Trotskyists would rather die than have a kind word for somebody who
has left the movement.
- Trotskyists have an Uber Mentor (Leon Trotsky, James P. Cannon,
Gerry Healey, Posada, Tony Cliff, Ted Grant etc. etc).
Perhaps, many groups could be included not just Trotskyists (I have been a Trotskyist for 18 years, and been part of various schisms within even small groups), but use it as an example of how ordinary editors do get bogged down in changing perception of policy and guidelines, which many, many editors only get to hear about when they actually contribute.
Perhaps a closed Wikipedia is the way forward, we all know that Wikipedia is not the encyclopedia everyone can edit.
There was much criticism of Esperanza and it ended up just being a clubroom and block vote. A New Esperanza type project would be helpful (wikilove is too crass though) but as a way of helping new editors or editors who tend to write new articles not get so fed up with process that they leave.
Would welcome any comments.
Mike33
It's true! Wikipedia *is* communism!
(I'm thinking we should have a pageg about that. [[WP:COMMUNISM]].)
Also, someone mentioned editcount. See [[WP:COUNT]]. ~~~~
To Steve and Gabe the Count reference was unfair as an analogy. Secondly, communism is about discussing policy, but how many lowly editors ever get heard above the BOOMING voices of long established administrators and beuracrats on policy/guidline talk pages, who often snuff out comments with a nonsense or I formulated this ;-)
Marc, people do get a lot out of Wikipedia thats why many of us are still contributing. But editing goes far beyond the encyclopedia anyone can edit. It only become the encyclopedia anyone can edit after you have studied policy for 3 years. disgruntled first, second, third time edits will revert to vandalism unless we handle new and experienced editors much better than we do now.
Mike33
On 25/06/07, Gabe Johnson gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/24/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
Other places have drawn analogogies about Wikipedia as being akin to a cult. I think it does have aspects of that. The same has been said
about
Trotskyist groups. I think that a better analogy would be that
Wikipedia
looks like a Trotskyist group (though obviously not in any political
sense).
- Wikipedians value themselves on the amount "counts" they are at.
- Wikipedians spend more time discussing policy than actually writing
articles.
Wikipedians don't respond well to critism from outsiders.
Wikipedians have an Uber Mentor (Jimbo Wales).
Trotskyists value themselves on the amounts of "newspapers" they
have sold.
- Trotskyists spend more time discussing policy that actually doing
groundwork.
- Trotskyists would rather die than have a kind word for somebody who
has left the movement.
- Trotskyists have an Uber Mentor (Leon Trotsky, James P. Cannon,
Gerry Healey, Posada, Tony Cliff, Ted Grant etc. etc).
Perhaps, many groups could be included not just Trotskyists (I have been
a
Trotskyist for 18 years, and been part of various schisms within even
small
groups), but use it as an example of how ordinary editors do get bogged
down
in changing perception of policy and guidelines, which many, many
editors
only get to hear about when they actually contribute.
Perhaps a closed Wikipedia is the way forward, we all know that
Wikipedia is
not the encyclopedia everyone can edit.
There was much criticism of Esperanza and it ended up just being a
clubroom
and block vote. A New Esperanza type project would be helpful (wikilove
is
too crass though) but as a way of helping new editors or editors who
tend to
write new articles not get so fed up with process that they leave.
Would welcome any comments.
Mike33
It's true! Wikipedia *is* communism!
(I'm thinking we should have a pageg about that. [[WP:COMMUNISM]].)
Also, someone mentioned editcount. See [[WP:COUNT]]. ~~~~
-- Absolute Power C^7rr8p£5 ab£$^u7£%y
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
3 years? that is total bullshit. I have been contributing only since August of 06, and I have been deeply involved in all sorts of heated and influential deletion discussions surrounding policy interpretation. I have had my views respected and heard bc of the clarity and (I hope) veracity of my interpretation. Wikipedia is a meritocracy. No matter how long you've been around, if you have a strong argument you will be heard. It is simply that most new editors ignore policy and only argue around semantics. This is naturally ignored for the most part. But once any new editor who figures out what they should be using as evidence, they can be heard.
On 6/24/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
To Steve and Gabe the Count reference was unfair as an analogy. Secondly, communism is about discussing policy, but how many lowly editors ever get heard above the BOOMING voices of long established administrators and beuracrats on policy/guidline talk pages, who often snuff out comments with a nonsense or I formulated this ;-)
Marc, people do get a lot out of Wikipedia thats why many of us are still contributing. But editing goes far beyond the encyclopedia anyone can edit. It only become the encyclopedia anyone can edit after you have studied policy for 3 years. disgruntled first, second, third time edits will revert to vandalism unless we handle new and experienced editors much better than we do now.
Mike33
On 25/06/07, Gabe Johnson gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/24/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
Other places have drawn analogogies about Wikipedia as being akin to a cult. I think it does have aspects of that. The same has been said
about
Trotskyist groups. I think that a better analogy would be that
Wikipedia
looks like a Trotskyist group (though obviously not in any political
sense).
- Wikipedians value themselves on the amount "counts" they are at.
- Wikipedians spend more time discussing policy than actually
writing
articles.
Wikipedians don't respond well to critism from outsiders.
Wikipedians have an Uber Mentor (Jimbo Wales).
Trotskyists value themselves on the amounts of "newspapers" they
have sold.
- Trotskyists spend more time discussing policy that actually doing
groundwork.
- Trotskyists would rather die than have a kind word for somebody
who
has left the movement.
- Trotskyists have an Uber Mentor (Leon Trotsky, James P. Cannon,
Gerry Healey, Posada, Tony Cliff, Ted Grant etc. etc).
Perhaps, many groups could be included not just Trotskyists (I have
been
a
Trotskyist for 18 years, and been part of various schisms within even
small
groups), but use it as an example of how ordinary editors do get
bogged
down
in changing perception of policy and guidelines, which many, many
editors
only get to hear about when they actually contribute.
Perhaps a closed Wikipedia is the way forward, we all know that
Wikipedia is
not the encyclopedia everyone can edit.
There was much criticism of Esperanza and it ended up just being a
clubroom
and block vote. A New Esperanza type project would be helpful
(wikilove
is
too crass though) but as a way of helping new editors or editors who
tend to
write new articles not get so fed up with process that they leave.
Would welcome any comments.
Mike33
It's true! Wikipedia *is* communism!
(I'm thinking we should have a pageg about that. [[WP:COMMUNISM]].)
Also, someone mentioned editcount. See [[WP:COUNT]]. ~~~~
-- Absolute Power C^7rr8p£5 ab£$^u7£%y
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
three years was a joke (you could spend three years in college and may not be able to graduate in wikipediapolicy). bland joke. If Wikipedia is to be great, (We want that?) we want everyone capable of understanding wikipediapolicy (We want that?). If everyone doesn't uderstand Wikipediapolicy to the finist detail then they must be cruft or newb. We won't help them learn the mysteries we will give the pages uopon pages of WP: . Not every editor is going to understand finite points of policy, that is why Wikipedia is exclusive and not so inclusive as we all say it is on our welcome templates. How can we really welcome people when we have just posted an spd tag? or reduced them to three sentences? I love Wikipedia. I think it is the greatest resource that we have but cant we let people know what they are in for? apart from the lil tag that says you may be deleted? We are about being BOLD but why hide this simple truth? Mike33
On 25/06/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
3 years? that is total bullshit. I have been contributing only since August of 06, and I have been deeply involved in all sorts of heated and influential deletion discussions surrounding policy interpretation. I have had my views respected and heard bc of the clarity and (I hope) veracity of my interpretation. Wikipedia is a meritocracy. No matter how long you've been around, if you have a strong argument you will be heard. It is simply that most new editors ignore policy and only argue around semantics. This is naturally ignored for the most part. But once any new editor who figures out what they should be using as evidence, they can be heard.
On 6/25/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
three years was a joke (you could spend three years in college and may not be able to graduate in wikipediapolicy). bland joke. If Wikipedia is to be great, (We want that?) we want everyone capable of understanding wikipediapolicy (We want that?). If everyone doesn't uderstand Wikipediapolicy to the finist detail then they must be cruft or newb. We won't help them learn the mysteries we will give the pages uopon pages of WP: . Not every editor is going to understand finite points of policy, that is why Wikipedia is exclusive and not so inclusive as we all say it is on our welcome templates. How can we really welcome people when we have just posted an spd tag? or reduced them to three sentences? I love Wikipedia. I think it is the greatest resource that we have but cant we let people know what they are in for? apart from the lil tag that says you may be deleted? We are about being BOLD but why hide this simple truth? Mike33
Maybe because we all assume it's a given that nobody will ever understand every policy and guideline there is out there. To me, it's already understood, in the same way that it's a given nobody will ever know every law on the statute books. It's not desirable, but it's preferable to anarchy.
Johnleemk
I actually take badly to the notion that because rules are in place you understand. Nobody actually understands anything on Wikipedia. That is why we have Arbcom that regulates months of discussion about finite points. If the Talmud is a list of arguments then Wikipedia is outta sight in its arguments. But all these thing are high level.
New editors, editors who create sourced articles, editors who cleanup articles must find it ridiculous that silently above there edits there is a bunch of us watching there every move. Wanting, Wishing them to slip up, so we correct them like a child who used the wrong cutlery at a dinner party. They have no idea about policy or guidelines. The first they ever hear about it is on the user talk page. They are directed to a page that they had no idea was changed a few days ago. They start lengthy battles with admins who can't be bothered to describe the process involved in creating policy and guidelines. "Well I made it", "Sure but I think you'll find I discussed this with x" those kind of comments aren't helpful and just add to the problem I see on Wikipedia of it exclusiveness.
Mike33
On 25/06/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/25/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
three years was a joke (you could spend three years in college and may
not
be able to graduate in wikipediapolicy). bland joke. If Wikipedia is to
be
great, (We want that?) we want everyone capable of understanding wikipediapolicy (We want that?). If everyone doesn't uderstand Wikipediapolicy to the finist detail then they must be cruft or newb. We won't help them learn the mysteries we will give the pages uopon pages
of
WP: . Not every editor is going to understand finite points of policy, that is why Wikipedia is exclusive and not so inclusive as we all say it is
on
our welcome templates. How can we really welcome people when we have
just
posted an spd tag? or reduced them to three sentences? I love
Wikipedia.
I think it is the greatest resource that we have but cant we let people
know
what they are in for? apart from the lil tag that says you may be deleted? We are about being BOLD but why hide this simple truth? Mike33
Maybe because we all assume it's a given that nobody will ever understand every policy and guideline there is out there. To me, it's already understood, in the same way that it's a given nobody will ever know every law on the statute books. It's not desirable, but it's preferable to anarchy.
Johnleemk _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
on 6/24/07 8:54 PM, michael west at michawest@gmail.com wrote:
To Steve and Gabe the Count reference was unfair as an analogy. Secondly, communism is about discussing policy, but how many lowly editors ever get heard above the BOOMING voices of long established administrators and beuracrats on policy/guidline talk pages, who often snuff out comments with a nonsense or I formulated this ;-)
Marc, people do get a lot out of Wikipedia thats why many of us are still contributing. But editing goes far beyond the encyclopedia anyone can edit. It only become the encyclopedia anyone can edit after you have studied policy for 3 years. disgruntled first, second, third time edits will revert to vandalism unless we handle new and experienced editors much better than we do now.
Mike33
Mike, I understand better where you are coming from. The title of this thread should have been "WP as a culture" (you left off the last 3 letters :-)). And yes, how persons are treated within the WP Community has been a topic of discussion for some time now. Perhaps someday that discussion will become serious - with some serious, positive results.
Marc
On 25/06/07, Gabe Johnson gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/24/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
Other places have drawn analogogies about Wikipedia as being akin to a cult. I think it does have aspects of that. The same has been said
about
Trotskyist groups. I think that a better analogy would be that
Wikipedia
looks like a Trotskyist group (though obviously not in any political
sense).
- Wikipedians value themselves on the amount "counts" they are at.
- Wikipedians spend more time discussing policy than actually writing
articles.
Wikipedians don't respond well to critism from outsiders.
Wikipedians have an Uber Mentor (Jimbo Wales).
Trotskyists value themselves on the amounts of "newspapers" they
have sold.
- Trotskyists spend more time discussing policy that actually doing
groundwork.
- Trotskyists would rather die than have a kind word for somebody who
has left the movement.
- Trotskyists have an Uber Mentor (Leon Trotsky, James P. Cannon,
Gerry Healey, Posada, Tony Cliff, Ted Grant etc. etc).
Perhaps, many groups could be included not just Trotskyists (I have been
a
Trotskyist for 18 years, and been part of various schisms within even
small
groups), but use it as an example of how ordinary editors do get bogged
down
in changing perception of policy and guidelines, which many, many
editors
only get to hear about when they actually contribute.
Perhaps a closed Wikipedia is the way forward, we all know that
Wikipedia is
not the encyclopedia everyone can edit.
There was much criticism of Esperanza and it ended up just being a
clubroom
and block vote. A New Esperanza type project would be helpful (wikilove
is
too crass though) but as a way of helping new editors or editors who
tend to
write new articles not get so fed up with process that they leave.
Would welcome any comments.
Mike33
It's true! Wikipedia *is* communism!
(I'm thinking we should have a pageg about that. [[WP:COMMUNISM]].)
Also, someone mentioned editcount. See [[WP:COUNT]]. ~~~~
-- Absolute Power C^7rr8p£5 ab£$^u7£%y
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
oooops soz stupid gmail again hey ;-)
Mike, I understand better where you are coming from. The title of this
thread should have been "WP as a culture" (you left off the last 3 letters :-)). And yes, how persons are treated within the WP Community has been a topic of discussion for some time now. Perhaps someday that discussion will become serious - with some serious, positive results.
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 6/24/07 8:54 PM, michael west at michawest@gmail.com wrote:
To Steve and Gabe the Count reference was unfair as an analogy. Secondly, communism is about discussing policy, but how many lowly editors ever get heard above the BOOMING voices of long established administrators and beuracrats on policy/guidline talk pages, who often snuff out comments with a nonsense or I formulated this ;-)
Marc, people do get a lot out of Wikipedia thats why many of us are still contributing. But editing goes far beyond the encyclopedia anyone can edit. It only become the encyclopedia anyone can edit after you have studied policy for 3 years. disgruntled first, second, third time edits will revert to vandalism unless we handle new and experienced editors much better than we do now.
Mike33
Mike, I understand better where you are coming from. The title of this thread should have been "WP as a culture" (you left off the last 3 letters :-)). And yes, how persons are treated within the WP Community has been a topic of discussion for some time now. Perhaps someday that discussion will become serious - with some serious, positive results.
Marc
On 25/06/07, Gabe Johnson gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/24/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
Other places have drawn analogogies about Wikipedia as being akin to a cult. I think it does have aspects of that. The same has been said
about
Trotskyist groups. I think that a better analogy would be that
Wikipedia
looks like a Trotskyist group (though obviously not in any political
sense).
- Wikipedians value themselves on the amount "counts" they are at.
- Wikipedians spend more time discussing policy than actually writing
articles.
Wikipedians don't respond well to critism from outsiders.
Wikipedians have an Uber Mentor (Jimbo Wales).
Trotskyists value themselves on the amounts of "newspapers" they
have sold.
- Trotskyists spend more time discussing policy that actually doing
groundwork.
- Trotskyists would rather die than have a kind word for somebody who
has left the movement.
- Trotskyists have an Uber Mentor (Leon Trotsky, James P. Cannon,
Gerry Healey, Posada, Tony Cliff, Ted Grant etc. etc).
Perhaps, many groups could be included not just Trotskyists (I have been
a
Trotskyist for 18 years, and been part of various schisms within even
small
groups), but use it as an example of how ordinary editors do get bogged
down
in changing perception of policy and guidelines, which many, many
editors
only get to hear about when they actually contribute.
Perhaps a closed Wikipedia is the way forward, we all know that
Wikipedia is
not the encyclopedia everyone can edit.
There was much criticism of Esperanza and it ended up just being a
clubroom
and block vote. A New Esperanza type project would be helpful (wikilove
is
too crass though) but as a way of helping new editors or editors who
tend to
write new articles not get so fed up with process that they leave.
Would welcome any comments.
Mike33
It's true! Wikipedia *is* communism!
(I'm thinking we should have a pageg about that. [[WP:COMMUNISM]].)
Also, someone mentioned editcount. See [[WP:COUNT]]. ~~~~
-- Absolute Power C^7rr8p£5 ab£$^u7£%y
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
And hopefully that discussion will include some talk about the pernicious amount of OWNership that goes on. Quite often, if you haven't already been contributing to a page for quite a while, you'll be summarily reverted if you edit the article and ignored if you post to talk. I've also noticed some Wikiprojects, or at least some members, being particularly bad about thinking that articles in their area are "theirs". Wikiprojects don't OWN articles any more than any individual does, the community as a whole does. I recall seeing a comment at an AfD I recently closed, something to the effect of "This needs to run another five days, Wikiproject Chemistry wasn't notified!" and shaking my head in disbelief. Wikiproject Chemistry doesn't decide what happens to that article (nor should they be CANVASSed so that they de facto can), the whole community does. (As it was, it was kept anyway.)
This is, of course, only something one person said, and may not at all reflect the actual viewpoint of most in Wikiproject Chemistry. But it certainly reflects the "Hey, this is OUR turf!" mentality that happens all too often.
In another case, where the use of binary vs. decimal prefixes for data capacities was being debated, it was frequently asserted that "contributors" to an article should have the final say, "contributor" defined as someone who's made a substantial number of edits to it. Talk about having it exactly backward-anyone who makes a good-faith, non-vandal edit to an article is a contributor to said article. This is another example of the nasty, pernicious, "my turf" attitude.
There are countless others-the relentless hostility toward those who cut or delete (does anyone know what "editor" actually means?), reverting new contributors who make poor but good-faith edits instead of educating them, and the list goes on and on and on.
I hope we can come up with a solution to this at some point. We're sure in need of one. Maybe we could start by placing this notice at the -top- of the edit page, in bold, red, 40-point type:
"If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, *do not submit it*."
G'day Todd,
(Strewth, it was interesting trying to work out who said what in the mish-mash of quotes here)
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 6/24/07 8:54 PM, michael west at michawest@gmail.com wrote:
Mike, I understand better where you are coming from. The title of this thread should have been "WP as a culture" (you left off the last 3 letters :-)). And yes, how persons are treated within the WP Community has been a topic of discussion for some time now. Perhaps someday that discussion will become serious - with some serious, positive results.
And hopefully that discussion will include some talk about the pernicious amount of OWNership that goes on. Quite often, if you haven't already been contributing to a page for quite a while, you'll be summarily reverted if you edit the article and ignored if you post to talk. I've also noticed some Wikiprojects, or at least some members, being particularly bad about thinking that articles in their area are "theirs". Wikiprojects don't OWN articles any more than any individual does, the community as a whole does. I recall seeing a comment at an AfD
You had me at "Hello" ...
I recently closed, something to the effect of "This needs to run another five days, Wikiproject Chemistry wasn't notified!" and shaking my head in disbelief. Wikiproject Chemistry doesn't decide what happens to that article (nor should they be CANVASSed so that they de facto can), the whole community does. (As it was, it was kept anyway.)
... and then lost me again.
Back In The Day, Wikiproject Australia kept tabs on Articles for Deletion, watching for clueless Americans. And believe me, there were *plenty* on offer. Some famous Australian (lead yodeller for the Flaming Hairnets, say) was on the verge of being deleted because a dickhead in his parents' basement in Iowa had never heard of him or, indeed, anyone who wasn't from Iowa. Alternatively, some Australian hoaxer was about to be kept because a wide-awake (but not wide-awake *enough*) American said, "Stop! It says he's the King of New South Wales, and that sounds pretty notable to me."
Wikiproject participants getting involved in AfD doesn't lead to vote-stacking (a meaningless phrase to the Clueful, anyway). What it generally means is that editors who actually know what they're talking about get a dekko at the article and AfD discussion. This is a Good Thing. It should *not* be discouraged.
Of course, it's up to the relevant Wikiproject to watch AfD. We shouldn't go extending processes because nobody from a Wikiproject had a relevant article on their watchlist.
This is, of course, only something one person said, and may not at all reflect the actual viewpoint of most in Wikiproject Chemistry. But it certainly reflects the "Hey, this is OUR turf!" mentality that happens all too often.
No, it doesn't.
If you improved an article on, say, dihydrogen monoxide (the silent killer!), and got reverted, and a Wikiproject Chemistry member said, "If you want to edit here you have to join the Wikiproject", that's one thing (it would also make a pretty cool movie, especially if you got Robert De Niro to play the Chemistry project heavyweight).
If, on the other hand, you nominated an article on dihydrogen monoxide for deletion ("Never heard of it, probably nn. No conceivable use IRL. Probably a hoax by those Wikiproject Chemistry wankers. My vote is '''strong speedy delete with cherries on top'''. ~~~~"), and Wikiproject Chemistry people flooded the AfD with big muscly smart people, that would not be a Bad Thing. It would, in fact, be a Good Thing.
<snip/>
Cheers,
From: Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au Reply-To: m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au,English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia as a cult Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 19:42:24 +1000
G'day Todd,
(Strewth, it was interesting trying to work out who said what in the mish-mash of quotes here)
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 6/24/07 8:54 PM, michael west at michawest@gmail.com wrote:
Mike, I understand better where you are coming from. The title of this thread should have been "WP as a culture" (you left off the last 3
letters
:-)). And yes, how persons are treated within the WP Community has been
a
topic of discussion for some time now. Perhaps someday that discussion
will
become serious - with some serious, positive results.
And hopefully that discussion will include some talk about the pernicious amount of OWNership that goes on. Quite often, if you haven't already been contributing to a page for quite a while, you'll be summarily reverted if you edit the article and ignored if you post to talk. I've also noticed some Wikiprojects, or at least some members, being particularly bad about thinking that articles in their area are "theirs". Wikiprojects don't OWN articles any more than any individual does, the community as a whole does. I recall seeing a comment at an AfD
You had me at "Hello" ...
I recently closed, something to the effect of "This needs to run another five days, Wikiproject Chemistry wasn't notified!" and shaking my head in disbelief. Wikiproject Chemistry doesn't decide what happens to that article (nor should they be CANVASSed so that they de facto can), the whole community does. (As it was, it was kept anyway.)
... and then lost me again.
Back In The Day, Wikiproject Australia kept tabs on Articles for Deletion, watching for clueless Americans. And believe me, there were *plenty* on offer. Some famous Australian (lead yodeller for the Flaming Hairnets, say) was on the verge of being deleted because a dickhead in his parents' basement in Iowa had never heard of him or, indeed, anyone who wasn't from Iowa. Alternatively, some Australian hoaxer was about to be kept because a wide-awake (but not wide-awake *enough*) American said, "Stop! It says he's the King of New South Wales, and that sounds pretty notable to me."
Wikiproject participants getting involved in AfD doesn't lead to vote-stacking (a meaningless phrase to the Clueful, anyway). What it generally means is that editors who actually know what they're talking about get a dekko at the article and AfD discussion. This is a Good Thing. It should *not* be discouraged.
Of course, it's up to the relevant Wikiproject to watch AfD. We shouldn't go extending processes because nobody from a Wikiproject had a relevant article on their watchlist.
This is, of course, only something one person said, and may not at all reflect the actual viewpoint of most in Wikiproject Chemistry. But it certainly reflects the "Hey, this is OUR turf!" mentality that happens all too often.
No, it doesn't.
If you improved an article on, say, dihydrogen monoxide (the silent killer!), and got reverted, and a Wikiproject Chemistry member said, "If you want to edit here you have to join the Wikiproject", that's one thing (it would also make a pretty cool movie, especially if you got Robert De Niro to play the Chemistry project heavyweight).
If, on the other hand, you nominated an article on dihydrogen monoxide for deletion ("Never heard of it, probably nn. No conceivable use IRL. Probably a hoax by those Wikiproject Chemistry wankers. My vote is '''strong speedy delete with cherries on top'''. ~~~~"), and Wikiproject Chemistry people flooded the AfD with big muscly smart people, that would not be a Bad Thing. It would, in fact, be a Good Thing.
<snip/>
Cheers,
-- Mark Gallagher
Wew. Yes, but....
I agree. You're right. BUT, IMO this only works when the WikiProject is stuffed full with clueful, (reasonably) adult people. Which many WikiProjects are, and then the WikiProject people make far better contributions at the relevant XfD than anyone else because they know the subject matter; they are able to determine whether we actually can write a good article on Topic X - which is what an awful lot of AFD boils down to.
But...sometimes you do get problems with WikiProjects at XfD, when Topic X may be important in Fictional Universe X but not in the big scary real world: then problems start. You tend to get discussion along the lines of "But it's a major robot in the 5th episode of the 3rd series!", when what you really want are discussions along the lines of "Can we demonstrate this has any major real-world significance?"
Usually Wikiprojects at XfD are a Good Thing, but there are limits.
Cheers,
Moreschi
_________________________________________________________________ The next generation of Hotmail is here! http://www.newhotmail.co.uk
G'day Chris Moreschi,
<snip stuff we've already agreed/>
But...sometimes you do get problems with WikiProjects at XfD, when Topic X may be important in Fictional Universe X but not in the big scary real world: then problems start. You tend to get discussion along the lines of "But it's a major robot in the 5th episode of the 3rd series!", when what you really want are discussions along the lines of "Can we demonstrate this has any major real-world significance?"
Usually Wikiprojects at XfD are a Good Thing, but there are limits.
Oh, absolutely: moderation in all things. (This applies to IAR/process BLP/completeness, professionalism/community, everything).
Never drink whiskey without water, and never drink water without whiskey!
Mark Gallagher wrote:
G'day Todd,
(Strewth, it was interesting trying to work out who said what in the mish-mash of quotes here)
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 6/24/07 8:54 PM, michael west at michawest@gmail.com wrote:
Mike, I understand better where you are coming from. The title of this thread should have been "WP as a culture" (you left off the last 3 letters :-)). And yes, how persons are treated within the WP Community has been a topic of discussion for some time now. Perhaps someday that discussion will become serious - with some serious, positive results.
And hopefully that discussion will include some talk about the pernicious amount of OWNership that goes on. Quite often, if you haven't already been contributing to a page for quite a while, you'll be summarily reverted if you edit the article and ignored if you post to talk. I've also noticed some Wikiprojects, or at least some members, being particularly bad about thinking that articles in their area are "theirs". Wikiprojects don't OWN articles any more than any individual does, the community as a whole does. I recall seeing a comment at an AfD
You had me at "Hello" ...
I recently closed, something to the effect of "This needs to run another five days, Wikiproject Chemistry wasn't notified!" and shaking my head in disbelief. Wikiproject Chemistry doesn't decide what happens to that article (nor should they be CANVASSed so that they de facto can), the whole community does. (As it was, it was kept anyway.)
... and then lost me again.
Back In The Day, Wikiproject Australia kept tabs on Articles for Deletion, watching for clueless Americans. And believe me, there were *plenty* on offer. Some famous Australian (lead yodeller for the Flaming Hairnets, say) was on the verge of being deleted because a dickhead in his parents' basement in Iowa had never heard of him or, indeed, anyone who wasn't from Iowa. Alternatively, some Australian hoaxer was about to be kept because a wide-awake (but not wide-awake *enough*) American said, "Stop! It says he's the King of New South Wales, and that sounds pretty notable to me."
Wikiproject participants getting involved in AfD doesn't lead to vote-stacking (a meaningless phrase to the Clueful, anyway). What it generally means is that editors who actually know what they're talking about get a dekko at the article and AfD discussion. This is a Good Thing. It should *not* be discouraged.
Of course, it's up to the relevant Wikiproject to watch AfD. We shouldn't go extending processes because nobody from a Wikiproject had a relevant article on their watchlist.
This is, of course, only something one person said, and may not at all reflect the actual viewpoint of most in Wikiproject Chemistry. But it certainly reflects the "Hey, this is OUR turf!" mentality that happens all too often.
No, it doesn't.
If you improved an article on, say, dihydrogen monoxide (the silent killer!), and got reverted, and a Wikiproject Chemistry member said, "If you want to edit here you have to join the Wikiproject", that's one thing (it would also make a pretty cool movie, especially if you got Robert De Niro to play the Chemistry project heavyweight).
If, on the other hand, you nominated an article on dihydrogen monoxide for deletion ("Never heard of it, probably nn. No conceivable use IRL. Probably a hoax by those Wikiproject Chemistry wankers. My vote is '''strong speedy delete with cherries on top'''. ~~~~"), and Wikiproject Chemistry people flooded the AfD with big muscly smart people, that would not be a Bad Thing. It would, in fact, be a Good Thing.
<snip/>
Cheers,
I think we're saying the same thing, just in slightly different ways. :)
I would expect that some Wikiproject members probably have an article on their area of interest on their watchlist and will comment on a deletion discussion for it. It would be good if they do, since they may have insights to offer to the discussion that others may lack.
On the other hand, some Wikiprojects do aggressively canvass. I'm reminded of HIGHWAYS sending out their first (and as far as I know only) "newsletter" to all their members, asking them to "protect the safety of highway articles" or something like that, when a few questionable ones were up for AfD. Numerical consensus is a factor at AfD, even if it's not the only one, and taking deliberate steps to skew that isn't acceptable.
However, the main problem remains the OWNership issue in general. It happens a lot more often than I imagine most would like to think, and I've sure seen more references to "my article" than I would like to. I think it's something we need to start taking more aggressive action against, even if the OWNers aren't technically violating 3RR (since they tandem-revert and usually quickly drive off anyone who comes along).
I made that comment, and I'm not ashamed to admit it. This was an discussion that got little attention, because the only [people who knew about the subject enough to say anything hadn't noticed it. I knew just enough about it to recognize that I did not have the knowledge to know where the sources would be. (I should of course have asked for help from there myself)
I don't expect to participate in every AfD, only in those where I either know enough to evaluate or see something general enough to contribute usefully. I've learned, for example, not to attempt to discuss programming languages, and unless people are there who are able to discuss them, only the obvious cases can be decided. Fortunately, there are always people around AfD who do know about programming languages. There are unfortunately fewer chemists, and they're not always paying attention. There's a formal structure for notifying wikiprojects, but the keywords apparently didn't work in this case. WP would be lost without the specialists--it would be the same know-it-all environment that produced the superficial articles of the first two or three years. it goes better now because some of the specialists are tough enough to stick around. The ones who were too tender to accept challenge from the uneducated have left.
It's this combination that makes the collaboration--as is appropriate for a general encyclopedia--people who do know writing to be judged by those who don't--just as our readers judge. It should be familiar to any teacher--the exchange goes both ways.
Possibly I and Todd do agree after all. -- David DGG
On 6/24/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
And hopefully that discussion will include some talk about the pernicious amount of OWNership that goes on. Quite often, if you haven't already been contributing to a page for quite a while, you'll be summarily reverted if you edit the article and ignored if you post to talk. I've also noticed some Wikiprojects, or at least some members, being particularly bad about thinking that articles in their area are "theirs". Wikiprojects don't OWN articles any more than any individual does, the community as a whole does. I recall seeing a comment at an AfD I recently closed, something to the effect of "This needs to run another five days, Wikiproject Chemistry wasn't notified!" and shaking my head in disbelief. Wikiproject Chemistry doesn't decide what happens to that article (nor should they be CANVASSed so that they de facto can), the whole community does. (As it was, it was kept anyway.)
This is, of course, only something one person said, and may not at all reflect the actual viewpoint of most in Wikiproject Chemistry. But it certainly reflects the "Hey, this is OUR turf!" mentality that happens all too often.
In another case, where the use of binary vs. decimal prefixes for data capacities was being debated, it was frequently asserted that "contributors" to an article should have the final say, "contributor" defined as someone who's made a substantial number of edits to it. Talk about having it exactly backward-anyone who makes a good-faith, non-vandal edit to an article is a contributor to said article. This is another example of the nasty, pernicious, "my turf" attitude.
There are countless others-the relentless hostility toward those who cut or delete (does anyone know what "editor" actually means?), reverting new contributors who make poor but good-faith edits instead of educating them, and the list goes on and on and on.
I hope we can come up with a solution to this at some point. We're sure in need of one. Maybe we could start by placing this notice at the -top- of the edit page, in bold, red, 40-point type:
"If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, *do not submit it*."
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
Mike wrote:
- Wikipedians don't respond well to critism from outsiders.
Nahh, Wikipedians are pretty relaxed on that score. Just look at this thread: there have only been 20 followups, in over two hours. If Wikipedians were really touchy about this sort of thing, there would have been hundreds.
Seriously, though several of those observations are apposite, you don't need to look to cults or Trotskyist groups for the explanation. It's all adequately explained, I think, in [[Clay Shirky]]'s essay "A Group is its Own Worst Enemy", which ought to be required reading for anybody participating on this list.
michael west wrote:
Other places have drawn analogogies about Wikipedia as being akin to a cult. I think it does have aspects of that. The same has been said about Trotskyist groups. I think that a better analogy would be that Wikipedia looks like a Trotskyist group (though obviously not in any political sense).
So what?
Ec
mmmmmmmmmmmm. think that was an intro - hope u dont do edit summariies like that "so what?"
On 25/06/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
michael west wrote:
Other places have drawn analogogies about Wikipedia as being akin to a cult. I think it does have aspects of that. The same has been said about Trotskyist groups. I think that a better analogy would be that Wikipedia looks like a Trotskyist group (though obviously not in any political
sense).
So what?
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
michael west wrote:
- Wikipedians spend more time discussing policy than actually writing
articles.
{{fact}}